Does Anders Breivik have a point?

Is anybody calling him insane?

But to answer your question, yes I see a comparison between the two. Both wanted someone out of “their” land? (Or something like that?)

@Charles The big question in the trial is his sanity. If he’s found sane, he gets 21 years maximum, but if he’s found insane he stays in prison/therapy until he’s found “safe”.

Usually, something like this wouldn’t be incredibly relevant, but his sanity is the big question in the trial.

I understand, I think there’s a difference between being clinically insane and legally insane. Even if he is sane (which may be the case) his lawyer may argue insanity as a best defense. Heck, if I did something wrong, I’d do whatever it took to get off too.

Breivik cuts a pathetic figure, similar to Lee Harvey Oswald in the respect of a deluded patsy, his immature mind easily warped.
The guy fears a prison sentence & would rather die than face incarceration, surely a product of a sane mind.

I think so, yes.
I think it is because people want to judge the religion that drives the perpetrator. They want to say “Islam is evil and that is why they did it”. Were it “he is insane, that is why he did it, not because of Islam”, they would not get to do their us-versus-them masturbation session.
On the other hand, they do not want the same judgement cast on christianity, when a christian goes on a rampage, because then they would have to admit that their own religion is as bad as the other’s. That is why they have to go for the insanity excuse.

I agree with @ragingloli.

It’s convenient for one to switch names to serve their contradictory purposes.

Kind of. But I think we’d just assume they were evil, and not even bother with a trial. I get the feeling he’s trying to make a point to say that we treat Islamic terrorists better than him, and I think we treat them worse. After all, much of America is convinced that pretty much all Muslims and Arabs are terrorists, whereas no one is accusing any white people that aren’t Breivik of being terrorists.

If he was a “bearded jihadist” who said he’claimed association with a group that doesn’t exist? Then the answer is no. His sanity would still be in question.

I think you pretty much have to be insane to try to randomly kill people. The Jihadists are insane, too.

I think bearded jihadists walk a similar line between being insane maniacs and sane cold-blooded killers as well. Both ideologies are insane, but sane people believe insane things all the time.

Plenty of folks think bearded jihadists are insane. Anders, apparently, is also, if he thinks otherwise.

This guy is bat-shit crazy. Bat-shit crazy doesn’t require a beard or a bible. It only requires defective chromosomal multiplication.

@ragingloli then they would have to admit that their own religion is as bad as the other’s

But they would not. Biblical Christianity implicitly condemns slaughter, favoring evangelism. At the same time, it is firmly established that Christians (though I am not convinced that Breivik was anything more than a Sunday Christian) can and do (but should not) operate outside or even in opposition to God’s will, and indeed, are sinners.

@Nullo
“Biblical Christianity implicitly condemns slaughter, favoring evangelism”
Except for the parts where it proudly lists mass murder and genocide commanded, or directly perpetrated, by god.
Medieval christianity was completely aware of the fact that slaughter was not against their god’s will and acted on it accordingly, and because of modern secular humanist values that permeate western culture today, christianity must now pretend that slaughter is against god’s will to avoid becoming obsolete.

But all his talk of being a member of The Knights Templar that is a network of Europeans fighting to keep Europe pure does make him sound like he could be living in something of a fantasy land.

And taking a year off work to prepare for the attacks by playing World of Warcraft everyday for 16 hours a day? I’m sure that’s what they are doing in those training camps in the mountains of north Pakistan, playing video games. Is he a political ideologist? Maybe. Is he a member of a secret underground organisation opposed to multiculturalism? Unlikely. Is he a deluded nut job? I dont care. I shared a house with someone that worked in a secure hospital for the criminally insane and then moved to a regular prison. I know where I would rather be. Let him rot away surrounded by the crazy types that run around and masturbate covered in their own shit. That would be better than letting him live out his life in a regular prison under with the belief that he is a political prisoner.

I have been following the trial in the media here in Norway, and I must say that the image Breivik puts out is more along the classical lines of school drop-out with a social problem.. From what I can see he is more like the schoolshooters than the jihadists, and has only used ideology as a cover to do what he did.
Here in Norway the big question is not wether or not he is nuts, but more if he can claim insanity, .i.e a psycosis, at the time of the events,
Witch deceides if he is going to get 21 years+ “safety custody” (witch more than likely will let him rot in Jail till he dies), or a mental hospital (but for security reasons, his own amongs them, he would probably never get out from there either)

He is so contradictory in his statements that I think something in his mind is gonna give soon anyway…

The difference is the number of people involved. If one person kills people of a different religion he is a nut case. If a small group does it they are terrorists. If a real lot of people do it, then it is a holy war.

It is the same idea with religion in general. If one person says he has a book containing the word of God, he is a lunatic. If a small group does it, they are a cult. If a lot of people do it, they form a religion.

@Nullo, I hope one day you’ll renounce comments you’ve made on Fluther to this effect (and if you do, I’ll be happy to stop bringing it up).

But you’ve said you support the Bible’s views on the justification for ethnic cleansing. So I don’t think you can make that argument in good faith.

In his own, nutty way, he may have been trying to represent the Muslims as being nutcases.

@ragingloli Christianity, not the Bible. The Bible is partly a record of things, including the punishment of various groups for what amount to social sins under the Old Covenant. Yes, on some occasions, Israel was the tool. But you don’t get any of that under the New Covenant, because the New Covenant is built on the peace between God and Man. The powers that were in the Middle Ages either didn’t get this, or else didn’t care and instead exploited the Biblical illiteracy to create the necessary propaganda to reach for their objectives.
I strongly suspect the latter, since the truth is not really that difficult to work out, and the Crusades brought in a lot of money – a big deal, since quite a few Popes were bad at money management to put it mildly.

@Qingu When you and your fellows stop trying to misrepresent Christianity, I’ll be happy. The Bible doesn’t support ethnic cleansing, just punishment of sin.

The Bible commands ethnic cleansing (Deuteronomy 13:12, 20:16), and celebrates it victoriously (the entire book of Joshua), and explains the reasoning for commanding it (so that the genocided culture does not survive to pollute the culture of the chosen people, see Dt. 20:20).

You once said that you would support ethnic cleansing for the reason above, to wipe out a culture that is deemed so problematic that nobody in it must be allowed to survive.